Gareth Edmundson2015-08-02T20:31:55-04:00Gareth Edmundsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=gareth-edmundsonCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Gareth EdmundsonGood old fashioned elbow grease.We're Getting It Wrong on Immigrationtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.45303652014-01-02T06:35:48-05:002014-03-04T05:59:02-05:00Gareth Edmundsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gareth-edmundson/Daily Express or the Daily Mail over the festive period you may well be thinking that civilisation is about to end. If you believe the tabloid hype, Romanians and Bulgarians are currently streaming across the channel in their thousands like immigration's own re-enactment of the D-Day landings. Even worse, they tell us virtually all of these newcomers are not here to make any positive contribution but are simply here to spend their days claiming benefits, their nights in A&E and any time in between committing crime. With these scare stories I'm wondering whether the Express and Mail haven't just crossed the line a little. For one, their editorials and columns sound increasingly like a BNP circular that is fuelling knee-jerk reactions from political leaders who are fighting each other to climb on the xenophobia bandwagon. But I also can't help wonder whether all of this hyperbole isn't going to reduce the print circulation of both of these papers. Primarily because some Mail and Express customers will now be so terrified that they'll prefer to sit nervously by a bolted front door clutching a bread knife just in case a Romanian bursts through their door looking for their pension book instead of strolling down to their local newsagent to buy a paper.

It's sad that just as we've just welcomed 2014 that we are being subjected to this pantomime villain-esque narrative instead of a mature debate. Even worse, the fact vacuum is being filled with one sided studies to support the protagonists of the "world is going to end" theory when really the opposite is true. Regularly ignored is the fact that there are many thousands of highly skilled migrants that come to these shores each year who are an enormous net gain for UK plc. Not just in terms of taxes they pay but with entrepreneurial and creative talent that helps our economy to thrive. So much so that many businesses complain that our economy is suffering because they, quite literally, can't get the staff they need quickly enough because of our stringent rules. Then there's those migrants who are lower skilled - the category that the Mail and Express are really fond of. Much evidence shows that lower skilled migrants have a strong work ethic who are more willing to take lower paid jobs to contribute to the state. There's the old line about these migrants stealing the jobs of UK citizens but it's not stealing if British nationals shun this work in the first place. And if this is happening shouldn't we be congratulating immigrants for working hard and using this as an example to those that, up to now, we haven't been able to encourage into the work-place?

But more than anything else I think there is a far bigger elephant in the room that everyone seems to ignore which a financial value can't be given to - the fact that we are surrounded by positive impacts of immigration. I've spent New Year's week celebrating the arrival of 2014 with four New Zealanders, an Aussie and a Swede and so far we've festively enjoyed a couple of English pub meals, pizza, an Indian takeaway and a celebratory New Year's Day post party McDonald's. This is a small example, but it highlights that wherever you look, whether it's amongst friends or family, on your local high-street or throughout history, no piece of legislation has managed to somehow wrap the British way of life (whatever that is) in cotton wool to protect it from the impacts of globalisation. Take one look at America. Germans, Italians, Dutch, Irish, eastern Europeans and more latterly Hispanics have been arriving at their shores since the signing of the Constitution. Of course, there have been tensions and problems within this great melting pot of migration, but overall America is stronger both economically and culturally because of immigration and the UK has been too. The quicker we accept this fact and stop using Romanians and Bulgarians as a national focal point for xenophobic hate, the quicker we can talk about how immigration can help to make the UK economically and culturally stronger for everyone.]]>The Beginning of the End of Festive TVtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.45096212013-12-27T16:56:27-05:002014-02-26T05:59:01-05:00Gareth Edmundsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gareth-edmundson/
I'm sure millions tuned in but in case you didn't know, at 8.40pm Channel 5 decided to go into the prime time battle by screening Eddie Stobart - 12 Days of Christmas. For anyone that doesn't know what this is, it's genuinely as bad as it sounds. After people up and down the country battled high winds, adverse weather, gridlocks and crowds to fight their way to spend Christmas with their families this year, Channel 5 decided to try and replicate this nightmare in tele-visual form with an entire hour of lorry drivers fighting adverse weather, gridlocks and crowds to deliver stuff. This show is so far from festivity that Channel 5 could have made an equally Christmassy programme had they just taped a camera to the front of a local council gritter and filmed an hour of it driving down the A3 at 2am in the morning. As if this wasn't enough, this trucking TV spectacular wasn't even a premiere, it was actually first shown the previous night at 7pm on Christmas Eve. For those that managed to sit through an hour of truck driving hell, Channel 5 decided that the best way to carry on the feel good factor was to follow Eddie Stobart with Michael Jackson's This Is It which is an undoubted festive feast that chronicles the last set of rehearsals from a highly medicated King of Pop in the weeks before he died. Considering how the high street has been struggling lately I am beginning to wonder whether Channel 5 weren't colluding with all the major retailers on the understanding that they'd get a cut from the Boxing Day bonanza if their TV line-up managed to convince enough people it was a good idea to leave their homes on Christmas Day evening to spend the night in a tent outside DFS or Selfridges in freezing temperatures to wait for a bargain.

And if you thought that the Channel 5's Christmas Day scheduling was perhaps just a one off misjudgement or temporary aberration, you'd be wrong. Still to come, on the other big festive night of the holiday season - New Year's Eve, they'll be showing a countdown of the top 50 funniest comedians, for almost three hours. I am willing to bet that this show, which is meant to contain the funniest people in the world will actually deliver three hours of people telling us who they think are the funniest people in the world. Not much fun there then. So much so that you will want to dial up the Christmas Episode of Eastenders and its lighthearted attempted murder plot-line, just to cheer yourself up.

But maybe I am missing something here. Maybe the TV executives of Channel 5 know something that we don't. Maybe they are in fact TV pioneers rather than Eddie Stobart obsessives who believe an hour of lorry driving is the panacea of entertainment. While the numbers watching TV have generally held firm over the last few years, technology will increasingly mean that TV schedules are irrelevant. I remember when everyone used to plan their Christmas Days around what TV they wanted to watch. Turkeys would be timed to ensure that it didn't interfere with Only Fools and Horses. But with iPads, iPlayers, on demand and live record, families can concentrate on teaching Gran how to use her new Kindle in the knowledge that they can watch a certain Great Gran's Christmas message, Downton or Homeland whenever they want. Maybe that's why Channel 5 sent all their staff home over Christmas and told the security staff to play whatever tape they could find on the shelves. Because in the not too distant future, planning our lives around TV schedules will be a mere historical quirk that we'll fondly relate to our grandchildren as they gasp and respond in disbelief "what do you mean 8pm was the only time you could watch it?"]]>America Needs Britain's National Health Servicetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.42951962013-11-18T07:40:25-05:002014-01-23T18:58:21-05:00Gareth Edmundsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gareth-edmundson/
But all of this partisanship, incompetence and scandal actually is just a distraction and misses the point. While politicians posture, websites crash and 24hr news endlessly debate whether Obama lied, millions of Americans still don't have the health insurance they deserve and millions more remain uninsured and are playing Russian Roulette with their lives.

Being uninsured or bearing un-affordable healthcare costs is something almost incomprehensible to someone living in Britain. Before we look at how good or bad the National Health Service is it's important to look at it from a basic human level. A paper written by some very smart people from the London School of Economics, highlighted that only about five percent of people living in Britain said they faced financial barriers to getting healthcare. In America, that figure is a third. This is a staggering statistic. It is well known that financial worries cause the most stress to people and their families. It's one thing to worry about paying off a credit card after a post Thanksgiving Black Friday spree but another to worry about finding the money to pay medical bills for your child, partner or parent to keep them healthy. Really think about that for a second. This is a sad reality faced by all too many Americans and I don't know how they cope and survive, I really don't. I also can't understand how members of Congress can sleep at night knowing that this happens every single day in America.

This brings us on to the debate about how good the care is on Britain's National Health. Of course, it's not perfect and Britain's national obsession is finding faults with it, but if you just ignore the scare stories and former Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan's lies, you might be surprised.

Using data collected by the Commonwealth Fund and the OECD from 14 high income countries like Australia, France and America, Britain's National Health Service came first in seven of 22 categories and in the top three in 13 measuring healthcare performance. For example, the NHS did well in things like coordinating tests and records, low rates of errors and preventative care for things like diabetes. The NHS showed average performance for wait times for appointments with doctors and specialists and let's be honest, it did badly in 5 categories, one being the five year survival rate for breast cancer - which prompted a nationwide cancer plan to tackle it that is now delivering results.

So, like every health system the NHS has strengths and weaknesses but by international comparison, far from being a failed socialist experiment, it is actually performing remarkably well. And all of this while America spends double per head what most other high income countries do on healthcare which is an indication of just how drastically inefficient it is. Also, in a rather delicious twist, it means that if America's health costs were like Britain's they could give over $4000 back to each person, which is about the cost of Obamacare's silver healthcare coverage plan. To coin a famous movie line, how do like them apples Congressman Ryan?

But if we ignore my friendly jibe at Congressman Ryan, there is a very serious point that America must face if it is to solve the healthcare problem once and for all - the big question of what is government for? We have witnessed Congress pass laws giving wide ranging powers to the Federal Government to protect American citizens from terrorist attacks, but the same Congress is not willing to enact common sense reforms, based on the facts, to protect its citizens from ill health, which is a far bigger threat to life than terrorism has ever been. If Obamacare fails, as now looks likely to happen, I hope that America's political leaders will lose their moral hypocrisy, stop the socialist hysteria on the role of the Federal Government and look at Britain's National Health Service for inspiration. And if they do that, this might put them back on the path to clearing their collective guilty conscience.]]>How Can America Put Red Lines on Syria but No Red Lines on Gun Deaths at Home?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.39409612013-09-17T10:14:40-04:002013-11-17T05:12:01-05:00Gareth Edmundsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gareth-edmundson/13 more deaths in Washington D.C. will be added to the total of more than 30,000 people who are killed annually by guns in America. And just as 24 hour news reports from the scene with the latest eye-witness account, pro-gun politicians and lobbyists will be dusting off the familiar rebuttals. They'll be stating the importance of not making any legislative knee-jerk reactions and staying true to the Second Amendment - the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Pro-gun hardliners might even remind us that incidents like those in Sandy Hook or the Navy Yard give Americans even more justification to buy a gun to protect themselves against the armed mad men that are loose on the streets.

To draw a sobering comparison to America's gun deaths, the Syrian Observatory on Human Rights reported that since the start of the uprisings, more than 40,000 civilians have been killed, a figure that includes over 5,800 children and over 3,905 women.

Even when you include the alleged 1400 people who have died through chemical weapons that crossed Obama's 'red line', more people have died in America because of a gun than civilians in Syria since March 2011. But still the response of America's politicians, including Obama and Kerry, to this scandal at home and abroad offers a brazen moral double standard.

Why is it that so many of America's Congressman apply red lines, interventionist rhetoric and calls for military action against Assad but rejects minimal gun reforms at home? In April this year, the Senate voted against background checks on the sale of guns - a measure that most American's support, because it would contravene a law abiding citizen's right to buy a gun. Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina is one such example. Graham has been calling for strikes on Assad, has criticized the Russian deal for Syria to hand over its chemical weapons, and is, as we speak, trying to construct a joint resolution for military action but yet voted against banning high capacity ammunition magazines of over 10 bullets, that are capable of killing large numbers of people with a truly chilling swiftness.

By design, America's political system and many of its politicians seems to accept gun deaths as an acceptable cost of living in freedom, almost as if gun violence is part of the fabric of the American way as set down by the Constitution. But, as Australia has shown, this moral duplicity is unacceptable.

Following the Port Arthur, Tasmania massacre in 1996 where 35 people were killed and 23 wounded, Prime Minister John Howard and the Australian Parliament took swift action and passed gun control laws that have resulted in falling gun deaths. In the decade after Howard passed gun control legislation a study by an Australian university reported that gun homicides reduced by 59% and gun suicides by 65%. And it's not as if John Howard is a liberal left winger, he was actually a close ally of George W. Bush and took a hard line on many domestic social issues such as immigration.

How did America's National Rifle Association try to respond to Australia's legislation? They attempted to discredit Australia's reports of falling gun deaths to further their agenda, a move that led to Australia's Attorney General to accuse the NRA of falsifying statistics and to remove any references to Australia from the NRA website.

The United States Constitution is a document that should be revered. The Founding Fathers provided a political foundation based on inalienable rights which has successfully steered America to its global position of economic, political and military power. But, by the same token, the Constitution and its Second Amendment should not give American politicians and other pro gun zealots a mandate to call for military action abroad to stop the violence while ignoring gun deaths in their back yard.

Remember, the US Constitution isn't just about guns, it's very first line tells us the following:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

30,000 gun deaths per year in America without recourse or intervention is neither domestic tranquillity nor a more perfect union. America's political leaders need to take note and take action on this constitutional imperative.]]>Wayne Rooney Is More Out of Touch Than George Osbornetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.36746612013-07-30T04:27:53-04:002013-09-28T05:12:01-04:00Gareth Edmundsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gareth-edmundson/ Mo Farah hit the front in the 3000m and proceeded to decimate the rest of the field with a show of imperious athleticism, we were swept to our feet as the crowd erupted in a spine tingling cacophony of national pride that brought back memories of that famous super Saturday and Team GB's record medal haul.

But, as we know, seeing the Mobot cruise to victory is just one part of British success this summer. The Lions, Justin Rose, Andy Murray, Chris Froome and now England on course for the Ashes is part of a wider record of stellar success. So much so that it has led some people to describe this winning behaviour as decidedly un-British. Firstly, un-British? That's rubbish, throughout history we've won loads of stuff - just ask the French. But more seriously, as we watched on Saturday, my friend and I chatted about how we'd seen Britain's best stand tall in the face of pressure - like Murray in the final game against Djokovic , or Froome pushing his body to the limit to win the Tour. But, we lamented that in football, all we seem to have are over-paid show ponies who look more out of touch than George Osborne talking about pay rises for MPs whilst eating a Greggs pasty.

Right now, Wayne Rooney is possibly the leading light of spectacular self interest and PR misjudgement that seems to run through Premiership football at present. The latest headlines reported that Wayne had been forced to travel to Portugal with Colleen to escape his ongoing "turmoil". No Wayne, the Middle East is in turmoil. Your decision to either stay at the biggest football club in the world or go and play for Chelsea for about a million pounds a second is not turmoil. Ok, I realise that the tabloids will exaggerate to fill the endless column inches of celebrity non news, but I'm still pointing the finger at Rooney. I am doing this because somebody somewhere has to be feeding the press all this garbage. Either Wayne himself is talking to reporters to leverage his exit or his agent, publicist or another member of his faceless entourage is. And it is here that I think footballers like Wayne and their advisers across the Premiership need to have a good look at themselves in the mirror. Many people across the country haven't had a pay rise in years, athletes who won gold medals in 2012 - like the dedicated rower Helen Glover, are struggling to find enough sponsorship to support their training, and yet we have footballers driving around in gaudy Ferraris talking to their leech-like agents on their diamond encrusted iPhones demanding an extra £25,000 a week in wages or guarantees from the club that they'll always be in the starting eleven...or else. Or worse, you have agents feeding rumour and speculation just to try and force the hands of football clubs to make their next commission. It's a corrupt cartel of players and their acolytes, indulged by the media that ultimately only impacts fans. Either players tantrum and aren't worth the entry fee, clubs raise ticket prices to pay outrageous wages pricing fans out, or at worst, clubs go bankrupt. I know it sounds ridiculous but I am almost convinced that because we indulge the petulance of footballers off the field that their pathetic, morally questionable and bite- riddled behaviour appears on it.

It's also why England on a national scale aren't performing either. Rooney and co. are so self obsessed with their next mega contract or sponsorship deal that any collective national pride to represent their country comes a distant second.

So, if England manage to beat Australia (and the weather) in Manchester this weekend and once again the nation rejoices in more success, perhaps finally our footballing fraternity will think about how they can take the first step to reconnecting with the national mood by stopping their selfish petulance so they can start to contribute to our sporting legacy again.]]>Glastonbury Live, Who's Creating the Most Buzz?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.35109212013-06-27T12:14:04-04:002013-08-27T05:12:01-04:00Gareth Edmundsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gareth-edmundson/Huffington Post a live update on the chatter of who the festival-goers are most looking forward to seeing. I know that the Guardian are doing live tracking of twitter to show who people are talking about but, in my view, there is no substitute talking to people.

First off, you won't be surprised to learn that most people are talking about the Rolling Stones. Clearly, this isn't a surprise being that they are a mega band with appeal across generations. But, actually, as you chat to and listen to people, it's interesting that the talk is not always of getting there early to bag the best spot for the Stones' set. Instead, there seems to be lots of people - young and old - who are talking about them as a sort of bucket list activity. Undoubtedly, the Stones are a must-see act, but one that you might only stay around for a couple of songs, just so you can say in 20 years to your teenagers "I was there kids" .

For these people, the Stones are sort of the equivalent of the London Eye. Iconic, but something from which you might only want 20 minutes' entertainment. Of course, with everyone saying this, the Pyramid Stage will draw absolutely enormous crowds but, towards the fringes, that crowd might resemble a busy train station with people weaving in and out, catching a glimpse of the greats while they are likely to be headed somewhere else.

The act that seems to be receiving lots of enthusiasm is Public Enemy. Public Enemy are headlining the West Holts Stage and will be playing at the same time as Mick, Charlie, Ronnie and Keith on Saturday. But, compared to the musical juggernaut that is the Stones, Public Enemy have real musical heritage of their own. Formed in Long Island, New York, in 1982, Public Enemy are celebrating their 25th anniversary. A few years ago, Rolling Stone magazine ranked them 44th in their list of 100 Greatest Artists of All Time and in 2013 they were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Public Enemy's socially conscious and, at times, controversial lyrics have made them pioneers of hip-hop. In the late 80s and 90s they enjoyed international success with massive songs like 'Fight the Power' and "Don't Believe the Hype". And 20 years later they're still scoring hits. In 2012 they had a Top Five hit in the UK with "Harder than you Think" which was the anthem that everyone knows from the Paralympic Games on Channel 4 last year.

So there you have it. So far, as expected, it's the Rolling Stones on everyone's lips but they do have an extremely friendly Public Enemy.]]>The Glastonbury Festival Should be Given City Status by the Queentag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.33772912013-06-03T06:58:58-04:002013-08-03T05:12:01-04:00Gareth Edmundsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gareth-edmundson/
Here's my argument.

1. A City-sized population.

This year, 177,500 people will be milling around the festival. In 2011, The City of Oxford registered a population of 151,900. The historic City of York has a population of 198,000. If Glastonbury was a City, it would be the 46th biggest in the UK and 15 times larger than the smallest city in England - Wells, which is just down the road in Somerset. If Glastonbury was held in New Zealand, it would be their 5th biggest city.

The numbers don't stop there. If you lifted the 1000-acre site and placed it around Bank Tube in the City of London it would cover around 12-14 stations. That's insane. My morning commute is 3.5 miles. I might start walking half my way to work just to remind me of how big the site is. If you don't know London, the BBC have a handy website where you can input your postcode to see how Glastonbury measures up against your hometown: give it a go yourself and you'll no doubt gawping like I was.

2. A City-sized economy.

In 2007, Glastonbury and Mendip District Council looked at how big Glasto's economic impact was. When they'd added everything from spending on staff and suppliers to what visitors spent when they arrived, they estimated that Glastonbury's economic value was £73 million. Accounting for inflation, in 2013, that figure is likely to be closer to £100 million or more. That means that, in just a few days, Glastonbury is worth about the same as the revenue sales of Quaker Oats - sold all year round. Think about that when you're next tucking into your porridge. Not just that, but Glastonbury raises about £2 million for charities like Wateraid, Greenpeace and Oxfam each year. It also shares its economic success with its neighbouring towns and villages. In addition to the £6 million Glasto spends on local suppliers, in nearby Pilton it has repaired and refurbished two churches, playgrounds and helped to build a new working men's' club and 22 affordable homes with 10 more planned this year.

3. A City-sized culture.

Every good city has different parts, each with their own identity, culture and character. Glastonbury, with its countless stages and areas with music, cabaret, circus acts and sculpture, is no different. To illustrate this, we've all heard about the iconic Pyramid stage but in the City of Glastonbury have you checked out the West Holts Stage? This year I will be blogging from West Holts trying to capture some of the festival atmosphere, experiences and stories that might just give a bit more insight into what Glasto really has to offer, there might even be a Huff Post exclusive in there somewhere.

While the legendary Rolling Stones will be entertaining tens of thousands of spectators for as far as the eye can see, at West Holts you get closer to the artists and you get the chance listen to something that might amaze, delight and challenge your senses. Steve Symons, who books all the acts at West Holts, says the stage is where you'll find "the best groove based music from around the world from the soulful to the psychedelic. A place where you can expect to find young blades rubbing shoulders with living legends." Just look at this year's line up at West Holts and you'll see none other than the disco legend Nile Rodgers in there. This is the same Nile Rodgers who had a big hand in writing the biggest hit of the year so far in Daft Punk's "Get Lucky." See, the West Holts part of the city has something unique to offer, just like all the other areas too.

4. A City-sized Cathedral?

Not quite, but still, Glastonbury has a Church with two services a day and a Roman Catholic Mass on Sunday. It has a Jewish tent and Muslim prayers and you can even get married for the weekend at the Shangri-la. Not bad for a city made up of tents and marquees.
5. City-sized safety.

We've all heard the press releases that crime nationally is falling. Well, at Glastonbury, not only do the police have possibly the nicest website I've ever seen for a public service, but they even say themselves that Glastonbury has a "relatively crime-free existence". Not many cities can say that about themselves can they?

So there you have it. I think it's pretty clear that Glastonbury deserves to become a city. Now it's just down to Her Majesty to do the honourable thing.

Read more about what's going at the West Holts Stage in Glastonbury 2013 by going to www.westholts.co.uk or follow and like the West Holts Stage on Facebook and Twitter. ]]>After Boston, The London Marathon Has to Continue the Show of Defiancetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.30908052013-04-16T19:00:00-04:002013-06-16T05:12:01-04:00Gareth Edmundsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gareth-edmundson/
But in this pursuit, the terrorists will never win. Just take a look at the footage in the immediate aftermath on the streets of Boston. Clearly the perpetrators thought by targeting a large public event broadcast on TV they would maximise damage, injury and impact. However, what we witnessed after the explosion were the police, National Guard, medics and ordinary citizens running towards the scene. They weren't cowering in fear but instinctively chose to disregard their own safety to support their fellow citizen. This is heroism and true defiance at its best.

But it would be naive to think that the events in Boston won't be playing on the minds of everyone from organisers to competitors in this weekend's London Marathon. Without doubt the security will be increased as a result. But to follow on from Boston's clear demonstration of community resolve in the face of such atrocities, the capital has a real role to play this weekend.

The marathon is one of my favourite events in London. Thousands of competitors raising millions for charity, putting themselves through 26 miles of pain in some of the most bizarre (and often heavy) costumes known to man raising money to do one thing - help those who are less fortunate. The competitors are cheered on by spectators who can often be seen shouting encouragement to complete strangers running past them out of sheer recognition, respect and celebration of their achievement. Spectators who then show sheer unbridled joy and emotion when they spot a friend or family member go past.

Add in the music, the parties, the banners and those strange inflatable sticks that make a noise 50 times louder than clapping your hands and you can't help to be enveloped in an overwhelming sense of community goodwill. Which, frankly is a rather fantastic thing when you consider how big a city London is.

When you watch terrible events unfold as we did on Monday, we can't help but feel a sense of powerlessness. We are left to simply watch endless, repeating footage with an ever increasing feeling of sadness or sickness at what we witness. But London's marathon this weekend offers us an opportunity for an immediate response. Let the politicians, security services and 24 hour news handle the pursuit of justice and let's stick to what we can do.

To extend the sense of community that we saw in Boston and to show defiance to the perpetrators I think we have to turn out and support London's brave 26 milers this weekend.

We have to create the same sense of community, we have to cheer for complete strangers and we have to find some of those sticks that make an unbelievable racket. We have to do these things because we need to reaffirm our indestructible commitment to having the freedom to live and enjoy our lives exactly the way we choose. So, competitors? Good luck, I'm in awe of your commitment and achievement. Spectators? Turn out, cheer and support just like before. Terrorists? You'll never win or break our resolve.]]>UK Economic Recovery Hangs on Obama's State of the Uniontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26586372013-02-11T19:00:00-05:002013-04-13T05:12:01-04:00Gareth Edmundsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gareth-edmundson/At his inauguration, Obama used lofty liberal rhetoric on social issues. At the State of the Union, it is expected that Obama will turn to setting out more gritty detail on domestic priorities for this second term. Undoubtedly, a large part of the speech will focus on how the United States can protect their economic recovery and create jobs.

In contrast, the UK economy is still flatlining. Our debt continues to tick up and at present there is more confidence in finding horsemeat in a lasagne than there is of finding steady economic growth.

But whilst the nation remains gripped by equine-gate, we should remember that the economic fortunes of the United States pose a far greater threat to the UK than a rogue Findus meal galloping onto a dinner plate.

Here's why. The United States is by far and away the UK's biggest trading partner. Every year the United States buys £122billion of our goods and services - everything from Rolls Royce jet engines to financial services in the City of London. In comparison our next biggest partner is Germany who buy £52billion, representing less than half of the purchasing might of the United States.

But the deal with the United States is even more important to the UK when you look at what we buy from them. In total, the UK buys a £100billion of goods and services from the United States. This means that our balance of payments with the US shows a very healthy surplus of around £22billion a year. Sadly, it's not the same deal with our European brethren. We buy £20 billion more of goods and services from Germany than they buy from the UK. In total, we run a £46billion deficit with the 27 countries in the EU.

But why is this important? Quite simply, it's better for our economy if we sell more of our goods and services than we buy. The more products like jet engines we sell keeps wealth and jobs in this country and stops money going to other countries, thereby benefiting them and not us. Because of our healthy surplus with the US, it's very important to the UK that the American economy stays strong. For Germany, it's more important that the UK economy is strong because it will mean we keep buying more of their BMWs. To summarise, surplus is good, deficit is less good.

I know, economists are probably cringing reading this, claiming I'm dumbing down complex economic problems to a punch line. Maybe I am but I'll only stop when you agree with each other, on anything.

This brings us back to Obama's State of the Union. On 1 March a whole raft of spending cuts, known as the sequester, are due to come into effect in the United States. If left unchanged it is widely acknowledged that the cuts will halt growth and will push the United States into recession. In his speech Obama is likely to throw down the gauntlet again to Congress to delay these cuts and find a solution that will not threaten the US economy and the jobs of millions of Americans.

Not just Americans, if Obama and Congress can't find a solution and the US economy tanks then it's likely that the £122billion they spend in the UK will be hit too. This will pile more pressure onto George Osborne who would have to deal with American stagnation on top of the economic paralysis across the channel in the Eurozone. And without any sign of UK growth, kiss goodbye to reducing the deficit and keeping our credit rating. So, pretty bleak then.

In the last few weeks we've painfully discovered how vulnerable our food chain is to a global economy. In the coming weeks after the State of the Union, if Obama and the US Congress don't find a solution that protects the US economy, then the negative impact on the UK's economy and jobs will likely be significant. This is a situation far more serious than the dilemma of whether you can trust what's cooking in your microwave.]]>No One Should Be Toasting the Writers of Eastenders This Festive Seasontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23668022012-12-27T19:00:00-05:002013-02-26T05:12:01-05:00Gareth Edmundsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gareth-edmundson/Chronic Depression and I am going to ask for it to be screened on Christmas Day next year. I haven't finished writing all of it yet but I have decided that the plot will feature bigamy, domestic violence, hysterical scenes of shouting and screaming, non-stop passive aggressiveness, sexual intimidation and, as a grand finale, the death of a family member where the rest of the relatives look on with a mild vindictiveness.

I can hear the families shout "quick nan, put the brandy down in the kitchen, Chronic Depression's started and someone's already started crying." It'll be a sure fire hit.

For those of you that haven't realised I am actually just repeating what 9.4 million of you watched this year on Eastenders. Now, I don't watch Eastenders but considering that so much fuss is made every year I thought I'd give it a go.

I know that the soap aims for drama but I wasn't prepared for the underlying sinister air that pervaded the entire show, or in fact how comically bad it was. My festive favourite included the character of Kat Slater, who spent the entire episode in tears (or close to tears) and ended the show bent double crying into a puddle in Albert Square. My runner up goes to poor, wedding dress wearing Tanya Branning who seemed so desperate to wed Max she still asked him "are we getting married?" when Max's existing wife turned up on their doorstep.

If I were Max, I'd be nervous because it was only in 2009 that Tanya drugged and buried him alive. Next episode I bet Tanya will be in Walford market buying heavy duty bin bags and a balaclava.

This brings me nicely on to the subject of death. The writers of Eastenders seem to consider it as normal as mince pies. This year 'evil' Derek pegged it but since 2004 there have been a total of 11 deaths across Christmas and New Year. To make Derek's death more realistic in this year's episode I'd have had paramedics and the police on the scene immediately. Because after 11 deaths in eight years the local emergency services should have been parked outside the Queen Vic anyway.

After watching the episode I really don't know why the Radio Times doesn't come with a an anti-depressant attached to the front cover with a simple message that reads "take one an hour before Eastenders."

Eastenders is supposed to be a show highlighting the highs and lows of real life. Is this really what real life has become? I don't think it is.

This year, I've spent Christmas with my friends and family and I didn't have to tell any of them I intended to re-marry someone who'd buried me alive. My own festive highlight, was seeing a rather creative friend make something called Christmas Toast (patent pending). For those of you who may not be the next Heston Blumenthal, it's ideal. It involved cutting Christmas shapes out of toast and then decorating them like savoury Christmas cookies. My own favourite was a snowman comprising of toast, cream cheese, carrot for the nose, and peppercorns for eyes (tweet me if you want the full recipe).

The reason I'm telling you this is that, firstly, this is no doubt the sort of slightly festive example of festivity that happens in so many households at Christmas. Secondly, if one of my friends can offer some creativity to bring some Christmas spirit to something as simple as toast surely we can expect the writers of Eastenders can do a bit better for their handsome licence fee?

Sure, the BBC will claim that it's the cliff hangers and the knife edge drama that people want at Christmas. But is that view just a sad reflection of how far the writers of Eastenders have fallen? Apple's Steve Jobs didn't do focus groups because he thought the creativity of Apple and its products would create demand. And after the iPod, iPhone and iPad who would argue with him?

Similarly, if you did focus groups for watchers of Eastenders they'd tell you that it's the death, drama and depression that makes them tune in. But considering we all pay 130 quid a year for BBC surely the writers of the BBC can give us drama and festive spirit worthy of a Christmas special and not the hour of sinister and joyless television that they served up this year that made my friend's Christmas Toast look worthy of a Michelin star for creativity?]]>Starbucks Isn't the Scandal of the Autumn Statement, Politicians Aretag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22365822012-12-04T07:42:32-05:002013-02-03T05:12:01-05:00Gareth Edmundsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gareth-edmundson/£32 billion.

£32 billion, that's enough to rebuilt 400 of the £80 million flash academy schools with the £300 chairs or 80 brand new hospitals. If we managed to actually collect the cash that we are owed then we would be a quarter of the way to closing the crippling budget deficit that hangs like a millstone around the neck of the UK economy.

Think about that as you walk past Starbucks today, a firm that managed to pay precisely £0 corporation tax for the last 15 years. Even more frustratingly, I found all this out using Google, another multi-national, along with Facebook, Amazon and co who have all decided that paying corporation tax is for wimps.

I am not completely naive, I know that they all employ thousands and will make a sizeable contribution to the economy and the Chancellor's coffers. I also know that if the Chancellor decides to go after the tax avoiders in earnest then these businesses will just pay more to get even smarter accountants and continue the game of tax cat and mouse.

But as much as this tax avoidance is wrong, it's merely window dressing for the real scandal. Our economy is in serious trouble and yet our politicians on both sides seem to be more interested in beating each other up than actually helping the people they represent. Just watch the clips from the House of Commons as Osbourne delivers his Autumn statement. Watch the shouting, screaming, grinning and gurning on both sides of the aisle. All they will care about is landing the next blow against their opponents with a smug superiority. Never mind losing touch, it's as if Cameron and Osbourne, Milliband and Balls (oh yeah, and Clegg) can't even remember what a voter looks like. Nor do they seem to exhibit the slightest empathy with the fact that there are millions people on their doorstep who will feel the impact, and in many cases the hardship, of their decisions.

Political parties need to disagree. When it works well, it makes for better government. But at the moment each party is just is stuck in a never ending cycle of opposing each other purely on entrenched ideology. Neither side is allowed to simply have a good idea anymore. If it's a Tory policy, Labour will dismiss it outright and vice-versa whilst the marginalised Lib Dems look on like a weird relative at Christmas dinner who's invited but always ignored.

On the economy, it is bad enough that you can't find two economists that seem to agree on what to have for lunch. But when you add the likes of Ed Balls and George Osbourne into the mix, they would rather use any economic source, dubious or otherwise, not because they think it will genuinely get the country back on track but purely because they want to win a petty argument. This is short-sighted in the extreme.

And this is exactly the same with the Starbucks issue. I bet it's not how we fix the tax system that will be debated but more about Labour accusing the Tories of once again favouring the rich and big business over the hard working classes. No solution, just more ideological posturing. The question of how we reclaim the £32 billion that would actually make a real difference to real people, will be ignored yet again.

Osbourne and Balls, we all deserve better.]]>Poverty in America. The Silent Scandal of 6 November 2012tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20739662012-11-05T19:00:00-05:002013-01-05T05:12:01-05:00Gareth Edmundsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gareth-edmundson/46.2 million Americans live in poverty. This represents 15% of the population. Give or take a million, that's about the same population as Spain.

The biggest economy in the world, the global wealth creator that is the United States of America is effectively living with country the size of Spain of people who are below the poverty line, living on a household income of $23,021 for a family of four. Of the 46.2 million, six million live on nothing more than the basic benefit of food stamps which provides an income of $6,300 for a family of three. Bear that in mind next time you're in the supermarket trying to decide whether you should spend more on the cheeky Chablis over the basic Calpol for adults (pinot grigio). The Obama and Romney campaigns have spent $2.6 billion on their campaign. If that was given to the poorest 6 million, each one of them could have received a $450 gift to get them through the winter.

But by listening to Romney and Obama on the campaign trail these statistics never get an airing. I checked recent speeches that both of them have given in their final smash and grab for votes and the word poverty barely even gets a look-in. On 2 November, in Paul Ryan's home state of Wisconsin, Romney's stump speech didn't even mention poverty once. And Obama, campaigning in the same state on 1 November mentioned it just once in his 25 minute address to the people of Green Bay.

If you look at both candidates' websites you find lots on the economy, jobs and healthcare but, again, almost nothing about poverty. This is all while 46.2 million Americans continue to go about their daily lives, the majority in low paying jobs, trying to stay afloat. A silent scandal, their plight ignored.

So what is the answer? Well, firstly, we need to talk about it more. We need to be relentless in the pursuit of this issue until the figure of 46.2 million is burnt onto the retinas of every single politician in America. They need to feel the weight of guilt from the stories of individuals, families and children in their districts and states from California to New York. People power is old fashioned but it's never been more necessary than now.

Allied to that, America must shift the debate. An answer needs be found to the problem of the gap between rich and poor getting wider and wider. Wages have stagnated for lower paid jobs whilst the top 1% of earners has seen their salaries sky rocket. I'm not advocating a drastic communist style solution to reset this but I do think that America must win the tax battle, once and for all, to make sure that the breaks don't keep being handed out to the wealthiest in the nation.

On jobs, politicians need to change their rhetoric. It is longer acceptable for an economy to create low-paid jobs that only keep families trapped in a never ending poverty cycle.

On the question of ideology more generally, politicians need to understand their decisions have huge impacts on the most vulnerable. They should give up using the poor as their favourite plaything. Romney's running mate Paul Ryan is one of the worst offenders for this type of almost evangelical ideological posturing. He claims that by cutting programmes like education, welfare and healthcare will actually help poor people to get out of poverty. Garbage. An honest, fair and pragmatic debate on solutions is needed (I'll believe that when I see it).

Finally, in capitalist economies, so much more can be done to create a better moral consciousness where the principles of giving and philanthropy become embedded in society. Giving should become an ever present and not just a reaction or an outpouring after a crisis.

So, not much then. But to start, on 6 November, when you're drinking your Chablis watching the election coverage, spare a thought for the 46.2 million people in America for which 6 November will be just be another day in their battle to survive.]]>Is Obama Lucky or Unlucky?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20633212012-11-02T07:00:11-04:002014-01-23T18:58:21-05:00Gareth Edmundsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gareth-edmundson/
So, considering that Mitt Romney's five point plan has got so much attention (one point plan if you're Barack), then let's use this format to get us started. Here we go:

Five points as to why Obama is the luckiest politician since Clinton heard George H.W. Bush say the words "no new taxes."

1. America was ready for Obama.

Obama could have been the most talented and inspirational politician ever but for much of America's history he wouldn't have had any chance of being elected. But yet, at precisely the right point in the life of America here came Barack with the promise of hope and change.

2. He's had some of the worst opponents EVER.

Obama is a great politician but goodness me he's had some election opponents that don't deserve the keys to the White House lawn mower let alone the Oval Office. Firstly there was Alan Keyes. Keyes claimed that Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for Obama because of his views on abortion. It was crazy outbursts like that sealed Obama's 2004 Illinois landslide to put him in the Senate.

Move on four years and we had John McCain, who then picked the untested and relatively unknown Sarah Palin as his running mate. Now it's Mitt Romney, a guy that LOST to McCain in 2008.

3.He followed George W Bush and Dick Cheney

George W Bush's approval rating when he left office was 22%. Cheney's was 13%. They spent billions on a highly controversial war, they didn't find any weapons of mass destruction and scared the bejeesus out of the world in the process. Cheney even (accidentally) shot a guy.

4. He got Bin Laden

George W Bush was unlucky it didn't happen on his watch.

5. He has Bill Clinton in his corner (mostly)

Clinton left office with one of the highest ever approval ratings. He's a famously skilled campaigner and whilst we all know that he'd prefer Hillary there is no one else I'd rather have in my corner and on the campaign trail right now.

Five points as to why Obama is the unluckiest politician since Al Gore found out about hanging chads.

1. The economy

The economy was ruined when Obama got elected. It was virtually impossible for him to turn around the worst recession since the Great Depression and return America to glory in four years. The economy is so connected to approval ratings and electoral fortunes that Obama could not have prevented being unpopular from day one.

2. The national debt

$16.2 trillion and counting. But the seeds of this gargantuan sum were sown in the Bush administration. The Bush doctrine of increasing spending and cutting taxes at the same time has made the national debt a runaway train. It is a problem which hangs like a millstone around the necks of generations of American's to come. This leaves Obama with the choice of either cutting programmes or increasing taxes both of which doom him to unpopularity.

3. Polarisation

Obama has suffered the most crippling stalemate of the political system in living memory. Congress seems to be more interested in winning a political or ideological grudge match rather than acting in the best interests of the country or serving the people who elected them in the first place. Congress, a plague on both your houses.

4. Two foreign wars

Both wars have resulted in the countless deaths of American servicemen and have added to the crippling national debt. And let's not forget that the rest of the Middle East is going through an incredibly unstable period which forces the world to constantly look west to American shores for Obama's leadership.

5. The media

Just like the polarisation of Congress, much of the media has gone the same way, peddling bias that fuels ideological dispute. Today's modern media on everything from twitter to TV scrutinises politicians 24/7 leaving Obama to be criticised continuously through an unlimited amount of content.

Ok, this should be enough to get started. Over to you Huffington Post. We need a decision before the election....and we haven't even talked about Sandy yet.

]]>The Presidential Election and the Global Economy is in the Hands of Only 275,000 Voters in Ohiotag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20378532012-10-29T08:05:05-04:002012-12-29T05:12:02-05:00Gareth Edmundsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gareth-edmundson/27 of the past 29 elections.

Up until Obama's nap at the first debate he held a slim but stable lead in Ohio. Tracking polls now say it is roughly a tie and all to play for. But this time around Ohio, you have a really big decision. America is at a truly critical and precarious point. The economic numbers are incomprehensible. The national debt is $16.2 trillion ($16,200,000,000,000 if you want to see the zeros), a debt that has increased at a staggering $3.88 billion per day since 2007. To put that into context, America borrows more money in one day than the entire annual GDP of Fiji. Employment is rising (not quick enough) but many of the new jobs are low wage. And to add insult to injury, everything from fuel to food is increasing in price placing more and more pressure on the day to day lives of middle class America.

In times of such national crisis, it is often the case that politicians provide a semblance of united leadership. Sadly, Republicans and Democrats are as polarised as they have been for a generation and the economy is the battleground on which they fight to the death. The most concerning thing about this polarisation is that such a fissure in economic ideology has major implications when the decisions you make impact spreadsheets with numbers containing 12 zeros. Decisions that will impact average Americans from Oregon to Georgia and the global economy from Beijing to Athens.

In the last few days of the campaign, as Romney and Obama crisscross Ohio, it will be the undecided voters that will be plied with their economic polarity. But how many undecided voters in Ohio will decide who gets the keys to the White House?

Between 5-7% of the electorate are undecided, but with only a few days to go it is more likely that figure will be closer to 5%. This means that Romney and Obama are spending billions to court only about 275,000 voters. 275,000 voters, that's a lot of responsibility and power resting in the hands of very few people.

On that basis, each undecided vote in Ohio is roughly worth about $59 million of the national debt, $4 million of the deficit or $54 million of a US GDP of $15 trillion.

Oh to be one of the 275,000 undecided voters in Ohio right now. I really don't know how they sleep at night, I really don't, what with the fate of their country and the direction of a $15 trillion economic behemoth in their hands. I think they should just show the three presidential debates on repeat across all the TV networks until election day so that everyone has the best opportunity to make an informed choice.

I think that this tells us two things. Either, America should rethink an electoral system that places the power to elect a president in the hands of a very small number of voters. Or, maybe we should just trust Ohio to get on with it at each election as they have a remarkably good record at picking winners anyway. As much as I have no doubt the voters in Ohio are upstanding citizens, all I know is, if I lived in Columbus, I'd be phoning a friend right now.]]>At the Next Presidential Debate, Obama Has 90 Minutes to Save the Worldtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19653672012-10-15T19:00:00-04:002012-12-15T05:12:01-05:00Gareth Edmundsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gareth-edmundson/
In the vice presidential debate this week, Joe Biden smirked his way to a draw with Paul Ryan. This has slowed Romney's momentum but, make no mistake, with under a month to go, it's now a real possibility that Mitt Romney can win this thing.

For all of us in the UK and Europe, this should be rather worrying. Sure, we can look down from the moral heights of NHS mountain to watch Romney and Obama slug it out over issues like healthcare. But we shouldn't forget that a US President has enormous global influence that affects us all.

As a sobering reminder, America spends £711 billion a year on defence. This makes up 41% of the entire global spend and is more than the next 14 biggest spending countries combined. The UK is fourth on the list and we spend 11 times less than the United States. Believe me, you get a really good discount on missiles if you spend £711 billion so I think we should be careful choosing the person who wields that much global fire power.

More than that, the president has unrivalled ability to shift global politics both for the good the bad and the ugly, so this places enormous responsibility on our American cousins to choose wisely.

So far, the election campaign has been dominated by domestic policy. The US economy and the size of the budget deficit have rarely left the agenda, relegating foreign affairs to a mere by-line.

This is a key problem because Romney has escaped real scrutiny on his foreign policy credentials. He's given a couple of speeches that haven't shown any sort of nuanced view of global politics and stuck to broad and meaningless ideological statements like it being "the responsibility of our President to use America's great power to shape history - not to lead from behind." Also, Romney's disastrous tour of Europe in the summer has not even been discussed.

Lest we forget, but in only ten days abroad, Romney used an easy question about the London Olympics to sour his relationship with the UK. Then, in Jerusalem, he directly compared Israeli gross domestic product to Palestinian per capita GDP, attributing Israel's economic vitality to their culture which was down right offensive to most Palestinians. And finally, one of Mitt's staff told reporters to "kiss my a**" and "shove it" when they were standing at a holy site in Poland. So, let's say it could have gone better.

Since Obama was elected in 2008, global politics has become ever more complicated. Iraq and Afghanistan still rumble on. Israel and Palestine are far from peace. The Arab Spring still looks very frosty indeed. Finally, Iran seems to be either developing the most efficient national grid ever or is intent on having enough nuclear weapons to wipe some of their least favourite neighbours off the face of the earth (you know who you are).

Do not underestimate the seriousness of all of these problems. This is not the time for a president who can't make it through ten days with his allies without being able to get his Italian leather shoe out of his mouth. Also, despite being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, I'm not exactly banking on the dysfunctional EU family to sort everything out? I'm not for one second saying that the other contentious winner of this prize, Barack Obama, is somehow the answer to all our prayers. Nor do I think that his record is faultless. But on the evidence available, in a contest between Obama and Romney, I'm picking Obama.

So Barack, for goodness sake, man up. At the next debate you have 90 minutes to prove to the American People that you want to be president, beat the other guy and possibly save the world from gaffe induced destruction. No pressure then.]]>